THE Quadrilateral Coordination Group on Afghanistan has produced something of a surprise: talks with the Afghan Taliban are to resume by the end of the month.

With the fighting season in Afghanistan rapidly approaching, delayed talks would have meant the possibility of the Taliban making fresh gains on the battlefield and therefore being in a stronger position for delayed talks.

Now it appears that talking and fighting will take place simultaneously, giving the Afghan government and the QCG some additional leverage (Advantage, فائدہ حاصل کرنے کی گنجائش ) at the negotiating table — or at least not losing further ground to the Taliban at the outset. Also sensible is the reported phased approach to a peace process.

Know more: Taliban-Kabul direct talks expected by month’s end

Part of the delay in resuming peace talks was known to be the Afghan government’s insistence that Pakistan take action against so-called irreconcilables (جن سے تعاون یا صلح ممکن نہیں) among the Taliban, some of whom are thought to be based in Pakistan. In recent weeks, there has been some suggestion that the US too was looking for Pakistani action against the Haqqani network and parts of the Taliban.

Both the Afghan demands and American suggestions were deeply problematic — a peace process should begin by identifying those willing to reconcile rather than singling out those unwilling to do so.

It now appears that better sense has prevailed as the QCG joint press release over the weekend once again mentioned “Taliban groups” — a formulation that does not at least rule out any factions. Yet, the very mention of ‘Taliban groups’, used since the first joint press release of the QCG in January, suggests a difficult road ahead. How many groups are there? Who leads them? And which ones are inclined(مائل) to come to the negotiation table? The fracturing of the Afghan Taliban has possibly added to the logic of a negotiated peace — can factions and small groups really wage endless war against a state that while weak is not collapsing?

But it will also make the peace process more difficult to manage. A fractured Taliban means multiple leaders, each with agendas of their own. The QCG’s intensive diplomatic efforts will need to be sustained for quite some time.

There are some early lessons to be learned, however, for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. For the Afghan side, the spells of public rancour (نفرت، عداوت، بغض) against Pakistan need to be reconsidered.

For a year now, it has been clear that the Pakistani state is committed to helping create an intra-Afghan peace process and has wanted to work with the Afghan government to address mutual security concerns.

The Afghan side should respond with equanimity (تحمل، صبر) when obstacles in the peace process appear, as they will inevitably (لازمی طور پر).

For the Pakistani side, the concerns about TTP sanctuaries (پناہ گاہیں) in Afghanistan should not overwhelm efforts to nudge (،ٹہوکا دینا، ہلکا سا دھکا دینا) the Afghan peace process forwards. The dividends (فوائد) of a successful Afghan peace process will be of an enormous magnitude and will positively impact many other national security concerns here.

Published in Dawn, February 9th, 2016

Russian firepower helps Syrian forces edge towards Turkish border

REUTERS — THROUGH THE DAWN.COM/09.02.2016

BEIRUT: The Syrian army advanced towards the Turkish border on Monday in a major offensive (حملہ) backed by Russia and Iran that rebels say now threatens the future of their nearly five-year-old insurrection (بغاوت) against President Bashar al-Assad.

Iranian backed-militias played a key role on the ground as Russian jets intensified (شدت پیدا کرنا)what rebels call a scorched(جلی ہوئی) earth policy that has allowed the military back into the strategic northern area for the first time in more than two years.

“Our whole existence is now threatened, not just losing more ground,” said Abdul Rahim al-Najdawi from Liwa al-Tawheed, an insurgent group. “They are advancing and we are pulling back because in the face of such heavy aerial bombing we must minimise our losses.”

The Russian-backed Syrian government advance over recent days amounts to one of the biggest shifts in momentum(حرکت کی رفتار اور قوّت) of the war, helping to torpedo (تباہ و برباد کردینا ، سمندری جہاز کوایک خاص بم ٹارپیدو مار کر پانی میں غرق کردینا ) the first peace talks for two years, which collapsed last week before they had begun in earnest.

The Syrian military and its allies were almost five km from the rebel-held town of Tal Rafaat, which has brought them to around 25 km from the Turkish border, the rebels, residents and a conflict monitor said.

The assault around the city of Aleppo in northern Syria has prompted (اکسانا، تحیک پیدا کرنا) tens of thousands to flee towards Turkey, already sheltering more than 2.5 million Syrians.

In the last two days escalating (بڑھتی اور پھیلتی ہوئی) Russian bombardment of towns northwest of Aleppo, Anadan and Haritan, brought several thousand more, according to a resident in the town of Azaz.

Aleppo, Syria’s largest city before the war with 2 million people, has been divided for years into rebel and government-held sections. The government wants to take full control, which would be its biggest prize yet in a war that has already killed at least 250,000 people and driven 11 million from their homes.

Rebel-held areas in and around Aleppo are still home to 350,000 people, and aid workers have said they could soon fall to the government. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan was quoted at the weekend as saying Turkey was under threat, and Ankara has so far kept the border crossing there closed to most refugees.

After around a week of heavy Russian air strikes, Syrian government troops and their allies broke through rebel defences to reach two Shia towns in northern Aleppo province on Wednesday, choking (گلا گھونٹ دینا، بند کردینا)opposition supply lines from Turkey.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was “appalled” (خوف زدہ) by the suffering of Aleppo, blaming primarily Russian bombing and suggesting it violated a UN Security Council resolution Moscow signed in December.

Kerem Kinik, Vice President of the Turkish Red Crescent, told reporters at the Oncupinar border crossing that Syrians were fleeing Russian strikes in panic. The closure of the road to Aleppo risked a much larger scale repeat of crises in Ghouta, a besieged (جس کا محاصرہ کر لیا گیا ہو)Damascus suburb (مضافاتی علاقہ), or even Madaya, a blockaded town were residents have starved. “The route to Aleppo is completely closed and this is a road that was feeding all the main arteries inside Syria.

Published in Dawn, February 9th, 2016

The majority myth (Many disturbing facts about statistics of elections in Pakistan)

MUDDASSIR RIZVI — the DAWN/09.02.2016

The writer works with the Free and Fair Election Network.

UNDER Article 91 (4) of the Constitution, the prime minister is elected by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the National Assembly. Does this article ensure the premier also enjoys the support of the majority of the people in the country? The answer is in the negative.

Since 1988, none of the seven general elections yielded a government that enjoyed the support of even one-fifth of the total registered voters. More interestingly, Nawaz Sharif is heading the most popular government with his party having polled 17.17pc of registered votes (31.5pc of the total polled votes) in 2013. This is only after PPP which polled 18.16pc of the total registered votes in 1970. Awami League polled 39.2pc, but the rest is history. In 1977, PPP polled 36.29pc of the total registered votes, but PNA’s mass agitation over allegations of rigging led to the imposition of martial law.

A deeper analysis of election statistics for 2013 unfolds many disturbing facts. Despite being the most popular government, PML-N polled only 7.57pc of the registered votes in KP, 2.34pc in Sindh, 2.24pc in Balochistan, 23.38pc in Islamabad and 2.16pc in Fata. In Punjab where it took 117 of a total of 148 National Assembly seats, PML-N polled only 26.72pc of the total registered votes. The ruling party’s negligible presence in the federating units raises questions about the efficacy of the existing electoral system.

The examples of minority rules, however, are starker in the past. PPP formed the government with only 16.31 of the registered votes in 1988, IJI with 16.74pc in 1990, PPP (PDA) in 1993 with 14.11pc, PML-N in 1997 with 16.16pc, PML in 2002 with 10.43pc and PPP in 2008 with 13.34pc. In the case of each government, if votes polled by coalition parties are factored in, the successive governments would still represent a minority of the adult population instead of a simple majority.

A deeper analysis of election statistics for 2013 unfolds many disturbing facts.

The minority rule is further strengthened by the allocation of reserved seats for women and minorities on the basis of the number of seats won by a party instead of the votes polled. The provision of independent candidates contesting elections and joining any party also caters to providing stability to a minority government.

Should a party that enjoys the support of 17.17pc of adult Pakistanis be allowed to decide for 83.83pc? There can be no simple answers. Proponents may argue that democracy in its empirical form has to work with people who participate in elections and whichever party has majority gets to form the government. Opponents may argue that this form of democracy is neither representative nor democratic.

Despite the historical argument in favour or against, there is a need for tangible reforms to ensure a more proportional translation of votes into seats. For example, there is this misconception that PPP has been wiped out in Punjab where it polled more than 2.8 million votes in 2013. But its votes translated into only two National Assembly seats, averaging more than 1.4 million per seat. Similarly, PTI polled 5,080,034 in Punjab but got only eight seats — averaging 635,004 per seat. In contrast, the PML-N polled 13,164,050 votes and got 117 seats at an average of only 117,418 per seat.

Parties have support but do not have seats in proportion to their votes. This is the most critical weakness of the first-past-the-post system in Pakistan. It is based on the winner-takes-all principle ie the candidate receiving more votes wins the seat, allowing wastage of a significant percentage of polled votes. In 2013, 51.8pc of polled votes did not translate into any seat. More simply, 24,291,833 people voted but their votes did not win them any representation.

This is not an argument to undermine the legitimacy of the government but to make a case for improving the electoral system in a way that representation can be enhanced. There can be multiple ways to address the issue. A straightforward way is to make voting compulsory. The winner in a constituency must poll more than 50pc of the registered votes or else there would reruns between the two top vote-getters.

The proportional representation (PR) system may also be considered. While there are many complex variations of this system, the simplest is the List PR system, which is also the most widely practised around the world. Under this system, political parties present a list of candidates to the electorate in each multi-member district. Voters vote for a party, which gets seats in proportion to its share in the overall votes polled in the district. Wining candidates are taken in order of their position on the PR list for the district.

If the PR system is employed on the result of the 2013 elections and provinces are considered a single district with the existing 272 general, 60 women reserved and 10 minority reserved, the PML-N would have 131 National Assembly seats including 105 general, 22 women and four minority reserved; PTI 69 seats including 55 general, 12 women and two minority reserved; PPPP 62 seats including 49 general, 11 women and two minority reserved; MQM 22 seats including 17 general, four women and one minority reserved; JUI-F 15 seats including 11 general, three women and one minority reserved; PML 12 seats including 10 general and two women reserved; PML-F 10 seats including eight general and two women reserved; JI eight seats including seven general and one women reserved; ANP four seats including three general and one women reserved; PkMAP three seats including two general and one women reserved; and QWP, NPP, AJIP, AMLP, BNP and PML-Z one general seat each.

This clearly establishes that the actual public support of political parties is greater than what gets through FPTP. However, there are questions about the efficacy of the PR system including its ability to allow smaller parties to play a crucial role in government formation and functioning, at times holding majority parties hostage to their terms.

Nevertheless the parliamentary electoral reforms committee should ensure that its legislative recommendations address the question of representation. Fair and equitable, if not proportionate, representative political diversity must be the guiding principle.

The writer works with the Free and Fair Election Network.

Published in Dawn, February 9th, 2016

A road map for Afghanistan

Russian firepower helps Syrian forces edge towards Turkish border

The majority myth (Many disturbing facts about statistics of elections in Pakistan)

A deeper analysis of election statistics for 2013 unfolds many disturbing facts.